home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!netcomsv!netcomsv!ulogic!hartman
- From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Pros and cons of C++
- Message-ID: <847@ulogic.UUCP>
- Date: 11 Jan 93 19:30:14 GMT
- References: <TMB.93Jan7174627@arolla.idiap.ch> <79416@hydra.gatech.EDU> <TMB.93Jan8152439@arolla.idiap.ch>
- Organization: negligable
- Lines: 38
-
- In article <TMB.93Jan8152439@arolla.idiap.ch> tmb@idiap.ch writes:
- >
- >What makes those features costly in C++ is that they need to be
- >backwards compatible with C. Backwards compatibility is C++'s greatest
- >advantage over competing languages, but it is likely to be its
- >eventual downfall. Safety and garbage collection and many of the
- >other features that I mentioned, are features that many programmers
- >want, and other languages will sooner or later catch on, languages
- >that offer them without the (significant, though not devastating)
- >overhead that would be associated with them you tried to support them
- >in C++.
-
-
- I don't know. I think that eventually there will be a "clean break"
- between C & C++, where they will dump backwards compatibility for
- some for some of the features mentioned (pointer safety, etc.)
-
- Whether this will be:
-
- * Compiler options (similar to the current ANSI/K&R compiler
- options found in most C compilers)
-
- * New language version (C++ 5.0?)
-
- * A language w/ a new name that is essentially C++ w/ the
- true o-o extensions & features
-
- I can't hazard a guess. I imagine that one of those is likely
- in the next 3-5 years, if not sooner.
-
- -Richard Hartman
- hartman@ulogic.COM
-
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- "If we shadows have offended, Think but this and all is mended:
- That you have but slumbered here, While these visions did appear.
- And this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream."
-
-